Fox v. Pullman Palace Car Co.
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the St. Louis Circuit Court, Barclay, J. The plaintiff can not recover on a case other than that made by the pleadings.— Dougherty v. Matthews, 35 Mo. 528; Faulkner v. Faulkner, 73 Mo. 327 ; Waldheier v. Railroad, 71 Mo. 514. The instrument set out in the defendant’s answer was executed by both parties, and the court properly refused to dismiss for failure to file it. — Bowling v. Iiax, 55 Mo. 446.
1Opinion of the CourtThompson, J.
The petition demands the sum of $100 with interest, for “ money had and received of plaintiff for the use and be-hoof of plaintiff.” The answer denies that the defendant ever received any money of plaintiff for the use and behoof of plaintiff, except in the maimer and under the conditions set forth in its counter-claim therein stated. It further avers that an agreement in writing was executed by the plaintiff, and was also executed by the defendant, by its agent thereto authorized, which agreement is in the following terms : —
“ Whereas, W. H. Fox, party of the first part, has made application…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Dermott v. JonesSupreme Court of the United States · 1865
- Mansur v. BottsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1883
- Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company v. Knapp and OthersSupreme Court of the United States · 1835
- Stout v. St. Louis Tribune Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1873
3Cited by14 opinions
- Berry v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1894
- American Surety Co. v. Fruin-Bambrick Construction Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1914
- Richardson v. Moffitt-West Drug Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1902
- Beagles v. RobertsonMissouri Court of Appeals · 1909
- Cozad v. ElamMissouri Court of Appeals · 1905
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.